SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

by goldhelmet on Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:04 pm

Has there been discussion about adding a 10th team in addition to BYU? If not, would BYU be their own travel partner? It would seem to make sense to have an even number. Any candidates that seem like they would be a good fit?

by PurpleGeezer on Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:27 pm

As I Understand it, there are no plans to add a team. Of course, there was no plan to add a team until BYU fell in our laps.

If a great opportunity came up, the league would take it, no doubt, but the recent bids to join by Seattle, Denver,and Pacific were not acted on, for various reasons.

I think that the travel partner travel concept will be replaced by a double round robin.

by goldhelmet on Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:34 pm

I would have loved to have seen Seattle U. Thanks for the info.

by PurpleGeezer on Sat Jan 29, 2011 10:38 pm

Seattle will have trouble joining without Gonzaga's blessing. The rest of the conference won't support it if the NW teams don't and The Zags want the Seattle tv market.

The official reason given to exclude them was facitities, but I think it was really the TV thing.

by **MesaPilot1** on Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:06 am

Purplegeezer wrote:Seattle will have trouble joining without Gonzaga's blessing. The rest of the conference won't support it if the NW teams don't and The Zags want the Seattle tv market.

The official reason given to exclude them was facitities, but I think it was really the TV thing.

BUMMER...

by DTLegend on Sun Jan 30, 2011 9:45 am

Commissioner Jamie Z has come out a few times and said that there are no plans to add a tenth team. He has said that he won't add a team just for the sake of adding a team and if in the future the WCC does add a team, that team will have to increase the conferences profile.

by **PilotNut** on Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:12 pm

While I think everyone agrees that Seattle U would be a good fit "institutionally" (small, private school) and geographically, they have a ways to go to prove that they are viable Div-I Athletics program. Obviously in the WCC, Men's Basketball is key, and SU needs to prove that they would be an overall lift to the conference--they would not be know. They would need to prove they are a tournament caliber team, etc... Adding a team for the sake of adding a team just ends up costing the other 7/8 teams money.

I also believe the lack of an on-campus hoops facility is also a sticking point.

by onetouchfutbol on Sun Jan 30, 2011 12:25 pm

goldhelmet wrote:
I would have loved to have seen Seattle U. Thanks for the info.

I'm with you. It's too bad that $ and having Gonzaga's approval mean more than the institutional fit. I personally think that it's just a matter of time before it happens though. BYU can make the post-season argument for bringing money into the league, but, there's also money to be made during the season. Imagine having 8 WCC games at Key Arena per year. With their past history and guys like Elgin Baylor supportive, the fans will come back even with the name change (from the Chieftains to the Redhawks). That's good regular season $ right there.

by jake on Sun Jan 30, 2011 4:35 pm

In addition to TV, you start dividing the NCAA tournament money by an extra share. Unless the league gets to an annual multi-bid league I don't see what adding a likely non-tournament quality team is the best idea.

by PurplePrideTrumpet on Sun Jan 30, 2011 5:00 pm

jake wrote:In addition to TV, you start dividing the NCAA tournament money by an extra share. Unless the league gets to an annual multi-bid league I don't see what adding a likely non-tournament quality team is the best idea.

This is exactly what Zaninovich is talking about when considering expansion. There are some schools out there that seem like a good fit but unfortunately there is only one sport that brings in significant postseason money for the conference.

by GoZags on Mon Jan 31, 2011 8:33 am

Purplegeezer wrote:Seattle will have trouble joining without Gonzaga's blessing. The rest of the conference won't support it if the NW teams don't and The Zags want the Seattle tv market.

The official reason given to exclude them was facitities, but I think it was really the TV thing.

Please show me where Gonzaga has "officially" said they don't want Seattle. Few has expressed his opinion about the negative impact on RPI -- but that's about it.

When there WAS an official vote a couple of years ago -- Gonzaga voted in favor of adding SU. Gonzaga has one vote -- same as UP, SCU, USD, USF, LMU, PU, SMC and BYU (if the vote were to occur next year).

If you can verify that this isn't the case (and I believe it is) -- then please have at it.

Also -- should be a good game Thursday.

by Woodless! on Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:16 am

It's never been official but I believe it to be true.

by shallwemaui10 on Mon Jan 31, 2011 9:59 am

If Seattle U wants to have the type of program where they bring in players (student?) like Charles Garcia, then I say pass.

by **Stonehouse** on Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:01 am

Woodless! wrote:It's never been official but I believe it to be true.

It is, and it is official. And GoZags is misrepresenting things a bit... the last time WCC presidents voted on Seattle U's application to the WCC, they voted unanimously to turn it down. The conference brought in Jerry Palm to do an in-depth RPI analysis, had long discussions with ESPN to see how it would impact their TV deals, and ultimately came to the conclusion that adding Seattle would negatively impact RPI, make no measurable imapct with the TV deal, and would make each conference member's slice of the NCAA "money pie" smaller. Not really a hard decision, ultimately.

And beyond that, Gonzaga knows where its bread is buttered - they recruit Seattle very heavily, host a big annual game in Seattle that provides a healthy chunk of change, and have a lucrative FSN deal that relies on the Seattle market for ad revenue. It doesn't make sense for Gonzaga to welcome Seattle U with open arms. Perhaps the Jesuit connection is strong enough to overcome that, but when the issue comes up before Gonzaga's lay board and governing body (for the most part all successful business people), I think it would be a hard sell to convince them of what benefits adding Seattle U to the WCC would offer Gonzaga.

And if we look at it selfishly, it's really not the best thing for UP either. We recruit in Seattle, we have more alums living in Seattle than any city other than Portland, and we get a lot of students from there. If you think UP doesn't consider the Seattle market very important for its marketing efforts and regional branding, you are wrong. Furthermore, the pecking order in terms of basketball in the West is Pac-10, Mountain West, WCC, and then the WAC, Big West, and Big Sky. The WCC is pretty clearly a step up from all the rest of them and aren't really all that far behind the Pac-10 and MWC with BYU coming aboard. And when you include the WCC's awesome ESPN package, our conference is very desirable for kids to play in - multiple top 25-type teams, great cities to travel to, and terrific national exposure. Our conference affiliation is a very valuable commodity.

So why would UP want to give up some of its most fertile recruiting ground (the Seattle area) and have to compete with yet another WCC team that could offer them those same things?

It might be worth it down the road if Seattle U were to be able to turn itself into a true asset for the WCC, but until that point... it just doesn't really make sense, and you can't ignore the fact that it would probably negatively impact both Portland and Gonzaga.

by GoZags on Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:22 am

Stonehouse wrote:
Woodless! wrote:It's never been official but I believe it to be true.

It is, and it is official. And GoZags is misrepresenting things a bit... the last time WCC presidents voted on Seattle U's application to the WCC, they voted unanimously to turn it down. The conference brought in Jerry Palm to do an in-depth RPI analysis, had long discussions with ESPN to see how it would impact their TV deals, and ultimately came to the conclusion that adding Seattle would negatively impact RPI, make no measurable imapct with the TV deal, and would make each conference member's slice of the NCAA "money pie" smaller. Not really a hard decision, ultimately.

And beyond that, Gonzaga knows where its bread is buttered - they recruit Seattle very heavily, host a big annual game in Seattle that provides a healthy chunk of change, and have a lucrative FSN deal that relies on the Seattle market for ad revenue. It doesn't make sense for Gonzaga to welcome Seattle U with open arms. Perhaps the Jesuit connection is strong enough to overcome that, but when the issue comes up before Gonzaga's lay board and governing body (for the most part all successful business people), I think it would be a hard sell to convince them of what benefits adding Seattle U to the WCC would offer Gonzaga.

And if we look at it selfishly, it's really not the best thing for UP either. We recruit in Seattle, we have more alums living in Seattle than any city other than Portland, and we get a lot of students from there. If you think UP doesn't consider the Seattle market very important for its marketing efforts and regional branding, you are wrong. Furthermore, the pecking order in terms of basketball in the West is Pac-10, Mountain West, WCC, and then the WAC, Big West, and Big Sky. The WCC is pretty clearly a step up from all the rest of them and aren't really all that far behind the Pac-10 and MWC with BYU coming aboard. And when you include the WCC's awesome ESPN package, our conference is very desirable for kids to play in - multiple top 25-type teams, great cities to travel to, and terrific national exposure. Our conference affiliation is a very valuable commodity.

So why would UP want to give up some of its most fertile recruiting ground (the Seattle area) and have to compete with yet another WCC team that could offer them those same things?

It might be worth it down the road if Seattle U were to be able to turn itself into a true asset for the WCC, but until that point... it just doesn't really make sense, and you can't ignore the fact that it would probably negatively impact both Portland and Gonzaga.

SH, You'll have to let me know where I've "misrepresented things a bit".

The vote on Gilleran's watch, Father Spitzer -- then GU President voted in favor of adding Seattle U. That vote was 7-1 (and had more to do with Jesuit hierarchy than as a rational business decision) . Perhaps I could have used the word "several" years ago -- as the time frame for the Gilleran vote was borderline "couple of years ago" and "several years ago".

Also, you'll have to kindly link to an "official" statement from Gonzaga about not wanting Seattle U. in the conference. I do not believe one exists (although I do know that the sentiment exists).

OTOH, I do not disagree with any of the points you have made in your post. You've recapped much of Gonzaga's position, and the rest of the WCC's position (resulting in the most recent 8-0 vote, as you've stated).

So, unless I'm mistaken -- and you're saying that the entire league is kowtowing to Gonzaga's feelings (vs the position of the other WCC members), then it's much more than just "Gonzaga's blessing" that's keeping Seattle U. out. And that's the premise of the post I reacted to. This league is much more than the premise of "whatever Gonzaga wants, Gonzaga gets". (1) You, of all people, should know this.

It's interesting to see much of the Seattle media talking about how Gonzaga is keeping Seattle U. from the WCC. It's the WCC that's keeping Seattle U. from the WCC.

(1) http://www.su-spectator.com/opinion/d-i-desires-could-be-blocked-by-wcc-1.1743750
Column from Seattle U. blaming Gonzaga (and Gonzaga alone) for the WCC denying Seattle U. admission.

SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion

Re: SIAP - Regarding WCC Expansion